Introduction
To date, two decades into the 21st century, school bullying against LGBT teenagers is still a regular practice throughout the world. The shifts in socio-cultural comprehension are attributed to gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or other reasons. When it comes to LGBT teenage students, bullying might appear as a special tendency; the emotional consequences of such a bullied student exacerbate gender inequality. Bullying in school represents an interpersonal conflict that affects not only a student’s mental state but also the body. LGBT teenagers bullying in schools results in painful experiences based on severe adverse outcomes.
Some of the adverse outcomes from bullying can be directly through physical, emotional, verbal, or sexual violence; or indirectly, they exclude, isolate, or through the Internet to bully some classmates. Whether teenagers are forced into school has nothing relative to whether they belong to an LGBTQ community. School violence of sexual minority youths is often accompanied by severe stereotypes of gender expression and cissexism, making LGBTQ youth subject to specific pressures related to their identity (Stephen and Jessica 2016: n.p.). School violence and bullying have painful memories for both victims and bystanders; the effects of bullying in adolescence may remain with them for life. I plan to focus on the risk factors and the protective factors of sexual minority teenagers and how to improve an intervention of the LGBTQ community in school violence and bullying in my final essay.
Understanding of the Issue
In the adolescent period, youths become the agents of gender socialization. In an environment where bullying exists, children become the perpetrators of the violent crimes involved (Rosen & Stacey, 2019, 295). Bullying in learning institutions is an interpersonal conflict oppressive mode, which affects occurs both in the physical and mental being of the victim. With bullying being a troubling issue, its effects are felt mainly by students with LGBT orientation (Berry, 2018, 502). Thousands of students are victims of bullying, and worse, almost three-quarters of those victims are LGBT students. Among these adolescents, they had more experience than students of normal sexual orientation (Allen, 2014, 40). Anyone that fails to conform to the pathological construction of gender was, and it’s still made to become obsessed. Gender-based discrimination and violence have been known to have chilling effects on LGBT people (Ferber et al., 2017, 282). In youths, discrimination and prejudice worsen significantly since the perpetrators range from the school’s administrators to teachers to fellow students.
Main Discussion Points
Two methods that have been known to be applied find applications in the framing and exploration of mechanisms that exacerbate risks that LGBT youth face because of bullying. The primary method that facilitates the examination of the dangers that significantly contribute to the risk factors faced by LGBT youths constitutes of risk factors faced with all kids. The risk factors examined by this primary approach include child maltreatment and family conflicts (Russell & Jessica, 2016: 7). In the universal risk factors on compromised mental health, LGBT youths have scored high on issues like substance abuse and use and parent-children conflicts. Through the secondary approach, the risk factors faced by LGBT youths constitute discrimination and stigma and how the risks compound the daily stressors that exacerbate adverse outcomes (Russell & Jessica, 2016, 7). Specifically, the risk factors associated with discrimination rely on institutionalized protection absence, family rejection, and biased-based bullying.
While adversity exists, most LGBT youths develop into productive and healthy adults, yet studies concentrate on predominantly risk factors instead of protective resilience or factors. Russell and Jessica illustrate the contextual factors that confirm the identities of LGBT youths comprising of school programs and policies, dating, family acceptance, and the willingness to come out and stay there (Russell & Jessica,2016: 9). The rates of harassment and homophobic victimization are low in states that enumerate anti-bullying laws. Another protective mechanism that LGBT youths enjoy is associated with supportive GSA’s role in learning institutions. The intention through which the protective agents that safeguard LGBT students work is to minimize harassment and prejudice in learning environments (Russell, & Jessica, 2016: 9). LGBT youths encounter fewer depressive symptoms, suicidal behaviors and thoughts, and substance abuse in such settings.
Attending schools is mandatory for every youth, and therefore, it is significant that school climates should be safe for every student, LGBT or heterogeneous. Policies in the education environment like SOGI-inclusive anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies or laws associated with student adjustment and safety. Furthermore, institutions with similar approaches have been linked with providing foundations that facilitate school administrators, teachers, and associate personnel to develop environments that cater to the mentioned practices and policies (Russell & Jessica, 2016, 13). To a greater extent, interventions improvement relies on educators, who play an essential role in classroom curricula and training that should be all-inclusive to realize the promotion of LGB student well-being. Lastly, supporting LGBT issues in learning institutions is fundamental in individual, interpersonal interactions, and daily experiences.
References
Allen, Kimberly. 2014. “Addressing the issue: Bullying and LGBTQ youth.” Journal of Youth Development (9):40-46.
Berry, Keith. 2018. “LGBT bullying in school: A troubling relational story.” Communication Education 67(4):502-513. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2018.1506137
Ferber, Abby L., Kimberly Holcomb, and Tre Wentling. 2017. “Am I Osessed?” Pp.281-286 in Sex, gender, and sexuality: The new basics: An anthology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rosen, Nicole L., Stacey Nofziger. 2019. “Boys, Bullying, and Gender Roles: How Hegemonic Masculinity Shapes Bullying Behavior.” Gender Issues 36: 295-318.
Russell, Stephen T and Jessica N. Fish, 2016 “Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 12 (1): 465-487. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153